Posted by Third Party on March 12, 1998 at 09:36:07:
In Reply to: Re: AND means OR, an alternative view to consider? posted by Patrick on February 03, 1998 at 18:58:05:
: I respectfully submit that your argument is off-point.
: The constitutional guarantee that an accused can:
: 1. Appear AND defend in person, AND
: 2. Appear AND defend by counsel
: does NOT consist of too mutually exclusive rights.
: Matter of fact, I have seen some cases in some
: states where the accused DID IN FACT appear AND
: defend in person AND by counsel -- the court treated
: his as co-counsel in the same manner as they would
: have had there been two lawyers present.
: Of course Liars (lawyers) and the Black Frocked
: whores (judges) think they are mutually exclusive.
: But then they have an illegal monopoly they are trying
: to preserve. Having a knowledgeable co-counsel accused
: speak up in court quite often upsets the applecart
: and makes things proceed less efficiently in the
: otherwise normal fleecing operation.
You're correct. I followed my nose and came across the following Supreme Court cases interpreting the Sixth Amendment's ritght to assistance of consel.
The Counsel Clause itself, which permits the accused "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence," implies a right in the defendant to conduct his own defense, with ASSISTANCE at what, after all, is his, not counsel's trial. (Emphasis added)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 174 (1974)
First, the pro se defendant is entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury. This is the core of the Faretta right.
McKaskle v. Wiggens, supra, at 178
This second cite refers to another Supreme Court case which I won't cite for brevity. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) if you care to go any further in researching this matter on your own.
Post a Followup